We introduce a novel framework for incorporating human expertise into algorithmic predictions. Our approach leverages human judgment to distinguish inputs which are, or look the same to predictive algorithms. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human-AI collaboration in prediction tasks, as experts often form judgments by drawing on information which is not encoded in an algorithm's training data. Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of side information, and further provides a simple but principled method for selectively incorporating human feedback into algorithmic predictions. We show that this method provably improves the performance of any feasible algorithmic predictor and precisely quantify this improvement. We find empirically that although algorithms often outperform their human counterparts, human judgment can improve algorithmic predictions on instances (which can be identified ex-ante). In an X-ray classification task, we find that this subset constitutes nearly 30% of the patient population. Our approach provides a natural way of uncovering this heterogeneity and thus enabling effective human-AI collaboration.

Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of "side

Previous work has shown that allowing users to adjust a machine learning (ML) model's predictions can reduce aversion to imperfect algorithmic decisions. However, these results were obtained in situations where users had no information about the model's reasoning. Thus, it remains unclear whether interpretable ML models could further reduce algorithm aversion or even render adjustability obsolete. In this paper, we conceptually replicate a well-known study that examines the effect of adjustable predictions on algorithm aversion and extend it by introducing an interpretable ML model that visually reveals its decision logic. Through a pre-registered user study with 280 participants, we investigate how transparency interacts with adjustability in reducing aversion to algorithmic decision-making. Our results replicate the adjustability effect, showing that allowing users to modify algorithmic predictions mitigates aversion. Transparency's impact appears smaller than expected and was not significant for our sample. Furthermore, the effects of transparency and adjustability appear to be more independent than expected.

We introduce a novel framework for incorporating human expertise into algorithmic predictions. Our approach leverages human judgment to distinguish inputs which are algorithmically indistinguishable, or "look the same" to predictive algorithms. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human-AI collaboration in prediction tasks, as experts often form judgments by drawing on information which is not encoded in an algorithm's training data. Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of "side information", and further provides a simple but principled method for selectively incorporating human feedback into algorithmic predictions. We show that this method provably improves the performance of any feasible algorithmic predictor and precisely quantify this improvement.

We introduce a novel framework for human-AI collaboration in prediction and decision tasks. Our approach leverages human judgment to distinguish inputs which are algorithmically indistinguishable, or "look the same" to any feasible predictive algorithm. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human-AI collaboration in prediction and decision tasks, as experts often form judgments by drawing on information which is not encoded in an algorithm's training data. Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of "side information", and further provides a simple but principled method for selectively incorporating human feedback into algorithmic predictions. We show that this method provably improves the performance of any feasible algorithmic predictor and precisely quantify this improvement. We demonstrate the utility of our framework in a case study of emergency room triage decisions, where we find that although algorithmic risk scores are highly competitive with physicians, there is strong evidence that physician judgments provide signal which could not be replicated by any predictive algorithm. This insight yields a range of natural decision rules which leverage the complementary strengths of human experts and predictive algorithms.

We introduce a novel framework for incorporating human expertise into algorithmic predictions. Our approach focuses on the use of human judgment to distinguish inputs which `look the same' to any feasible predictive algorithm. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human/AI collaboration in prediction tasks, as experts often have access to information -- particularly subjective information -- which is not encoded in the algorithm's training data. We use this insight to develop a set of principled algorithms for selectively incorporating human feedback only when it improves the performance of any feasible predictor. We find empirically that although algorithms often outperform their human counterparts on average, human judgment can significantly improve algorithmic predictions on specific instances (which can be identified ex-ante). In an X-ray classification task, we find that this subset constitutes nearly 30% of the patient population. Our approach provides a natural way of uncovering this heterogeneity and thus enabling effective human-AI collaboration.

AI is becoming more prominent over the world, but there's more to AI than just chat bots. In this article, we discuss 7 unique AI examples.

In hybrid human-AI systems, users need to decide whether or not to trust an algorithmic prediction while the true error in the prediction is unknown. To accommodate such settings, we introduce RETRO-VIZ, a method for (i) estimating and (ii) explaining trustworthiness of regression predictions. It consists of RETRO, a quantitative estimate of the trustworthiness of a prediction, and VIZ, a visual explanation that helps users identify the reasons for the (lack of) trustworthiness of a prediction. We find that RETRO-scores negatively correlate with prediction error across 117 experimental settings, indicating that RETRO provides a useful measure to distinguish trustworthy predictions from untrustworthy ones. In a user study with 41 participants, we find that VIZ-explanations help users identify whether a prediction is trustworthy or not: on average, 95.1% of participants correctly select the more trustworthy prediction, given a pair of predictions. In addition, an average of 75.6% of participants can accurately describe why a prediction seems to be (not) trustworthy. Finally, we find that the vast majority of users subjectively experience RETRO-VIZ as a useful tool to assess the trustworthiness of algorithmic predictions.

In the following, we analyze the performance of our "European Stocks" Package by evaluating quantitative trading strategies which invest on a daily basis in the European stocks selected by our AI system and can easily be recreated by using the daily forecasts provided to clients. We show that the I Know First algorithm's signals including the costs of bid-ask spreads and commissions results in a high-performing trading strategy with excellent statistics: The I Know First Market Prediction System models and predicts the flow of money between the markets. It then creates a model that projects the future trajectory of the given market in the multidimensional space of other markets. The system outputs the predicted trend as a number (the signal), positive or negative, along with the wave chart that predicts how the waves will overlap the trend. This helps the trader decide which direction to trade, at what point to enter the trade, and when to exit.